Measuring Organizational Climate at the Abilene-Taylor

Abilene Christian UniversityDigital Commons @ ACU

School of Social Work College of Education and Human Services

12-2016

Measuring Organizational Climate at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health DistrictSarah E.A. FloydAbilene Christian University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/social_work

Part of the Nonprofit Administration and Management Commons, Organizational Behavior andTheory Commons, Organization Development Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy andPublic Administration Commons, Public Administration Commons, and the Social Work Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education and Human Services at Digital Commons @ ACU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in School of Social Work by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ ACU.

Recommended CitationFloyd, Sarah E.A., "Measuring Organizational Climate at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District" (2016). School of SocialWork. 2.https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/social_work/2

https://digitalcommons.acu.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/social_work?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/college_education_human_services?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/social_work?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1228?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages








https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/social_work/2?utm_source=digitalcommons.acu.edu%2Fsocial_work%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to answer the question, according to the Competing

Values Framework, what is the organizational climate of the Abilene-Taylor County

Public Health District (ATCPHD)? Organizational climate for this study refers to the

collective perceptions of employees on their interactions with their peers, management,

and the organization. This study surveyed the 64 employees at the ATCPHD with the

Organizational Climate Measure (OCM). Forty employees participated in the study. The

study determined that the climate of the ATCPHD, according to Competing Values

Framework (CVF), was the Human Relations organizational climate with a secondary

climate of Relational Goals. Having a Human Relations climate implies that the

ATCPHD values the well-being of employees and strives to make employee satisfaction

an end goal.

Keywords: Organizational climate, culture, Competing Values Framework,

Organizational Climate Measure, Human Relations climate, Rational Goals climate,

perceptions of employees, public health, employee well-being, organizational goal setting

Measuring Organizational Climate at the Abilene-Taylor County Public

Health District

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Graduate School

Abilene Christian University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

Social Work

By

Sarah Floyd

December 2016

To Austin, for believing in my every step of the way. To my parents who have

supported me in everything I have ever attempted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the employees at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District. Without

their support and enthusiasm this project would not have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. v

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Overview ................................................................................................................. 1

Research Question ................................................................................................... 2

Research Rationale .................................................................................................. 2

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 4

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 5

Literature Review Research Methods ..................................................................... 5

Review of Climate Definitions ................................................................................ 5

Units of Organizational Climate Theory ................................................................. 8

Climate Versus Culture ......................................................................................... 11

Criticisms on Climate ............................................................................................ 15

Competing Values Framework .............................................................................. 19

Important Notes About the CVF ............................................................... 21

Human Relations ....................................................................................... 23

Internal Process ......................................................................................... 23

Open Systems ............................................................................................ 23

Rational Goals ........................................................................................... 24

Domain Dimensions .................................................................................. 24

Climate Measures ...................................................................................... 27

Climate studies .............................................................................. 28

Testing Variables ....................................................................................... 30

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 32

Participants ............................................................................................................ 32

Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 32

Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 34

Analysis ................................................................................................................. 36

IV. FINDINGS/RESULTS .......................................................................................... 37

Demographic Findings .......................................................................................... 37

Study Findings ....................................................................................................... 40

Other Findings ....................................................................................................... 42

Reported Climate by Demographic ........................................................... 44

V. DISCUSSION/FINDINGS .................................................................................... 48

Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................... 48

Interesting Findings ............................................................................................... 52

Consistent with Literature ..................................................................................... 56

Strengths ................................................................................................................ 57

Limitations ............................................................................................................. 58

VI. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 59

Organization Implications and Research ............................................................... 59

Further Research .................................................................................................... 61

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 63

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX A: IRB Approval ............................................................................... 70

APPENDIX B: ATCPHD Approval ..................................................................... 71

APPENDIX C: Competing Values Framework Graphs ........................................ 72

APPENDIX D: Organizational Climate Measure ................................................. 74

APPENDIX E: Email Solicitation for Survey Measure ........................................ 85

iv

LIST OF TABLES

1: Shows descriptive statistics of the Human Relations and Rational Goal climates and shows that the means are significantly different from one another ................................... 42

2: Shows the reliability statistics for internal consistency of OCM .................................. 42

3: Reflects the internal consistency of all OCM scales ..................................................... 43

4: Shows the Correlations between the perceived climates at the ATCPHD .................... 44

5: Shows primary perceived organizational climate by years worked at ATCPHD ......... 45

6: Shows primary perceived organizational climate by department at the ATCPHD ...... .46

7: Shows primary perceived organizational climate by age at the ATCPHD ................... 47

8: Shows primary perceived organizational climate by gender at the ATCPHD .............. 47

v

LIST OF FIGURES

1: Shows the Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh ......... 19

2: Shows the years worked at the ATCPHD .................................................................... 38

3: Answers the demographic question, “In which department at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District do you work?” .................................................................. 39

4: Shows the reported age of employees who participated in the study ............................ 39

5: Shows the reported gender of employees who participated in the study ...................... 40

6: Answers the study question, “What is the climate of the ATCPHD?” ..........................41

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview The study of organizational climate is important to understanding any

organization. Exploring the climate of any organization provides insights on how

employees perceive their workplace and ultimately creates a descriptive overview of an

organization’s perceived characteristics.

The Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District (ATCPHD) has experienced a

time of transition, as evidenced by the agency gaining a new health director, opening a

specialized clinic, and often experiencing turnover. This is an excellent time for the

organizational climate to be assessed in order to get a baseline understanding of the status

of the organization for future studies. This study will allow the new director to gain an

idea of the overall organizational climate of the ATCPHD so that he can better

understand the status of the organization. A study focusing on climate is needed at the

ATCHPD because holistic organizational climate research has not yet been conducted on

this institution.

Implications from this study could assist the director in knowing how employees

at all levels and in different service departments perceive their workplace environment.

Few studies have conducted research exploring and determining the climate of public

organizations (Jung & Lee, 2016). Most of the studies that explore organizational climate

are not American based; they are looking at private companies in other countries

(Bernstrøm, Lone, Bjørkli, Ullleberg, & Hoff, 2013; Hannevik, Lone, Bjørklund, Bjørkli,

2

& Hoff, 2014; Imran, Saeed, Anis-ul-Haq, & Fatima, 2010; Lone et al., 2014; Patterson

et al., 2005). Also, not many of these studies approach climate with a holistic mindset.

Researchers instead are looking at just one or two aspects of organizational climate and

performing quasi-experimental tests on the private companies.

This study is unique as it explores organizational climate in a United States local

public health district. This study may potentially have implications adding to the climate

literature for small local public health districts. Another implication for this study might

include how well the theoretical framework used in this study (the competing values

framework) functions for local public health districts. Since there is limited literature on

climate of local public health districts in the United States, this study will add to the

overall organizational climate literature.

Research Question

As a result the research question guiding this study is: “According to the

competing values framework, what is the current organizational climate of the Abilene-

Taylor County Public Health District?”

Research Rationale

Organizational climate has an extensive history of research extending as far back

as the 1960s; however, the research topic began to get very popular around the 1970s

(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Early climate literature did not represent a

cohesive way of thinking about the subject or a cohesive way to go about measuring or

determining climate (Schneider et al., 2013). This prevented organizational climate

literature from growing, resulting in stagnant period of climate research during this time,

3

around the 1980s, and organizational culture became the popular field of study

(Schneider et al., 2013).

Climate’s past does not reflect cohesive dimensions, theories, or concluding

research; it is instead a patchwork of definitions and variables or dimensions (Schneider

et al., 2013). Recently, not many studies have focused solely on organizational climate,

thereby, limiting the amount of literature found on this topic to older studies. This study

will try to unify climate definitions, clarify the difference between climate and culture,

and look at the criticisms lobbied against climate. More research on organizational

climate should be conducted in order to 1) add to the literature on climate in attempts to

consolidate and make sense of the literature that is already present and 2) to validate

measures grounded in theory in order to assist organizational climate research in finding

common dimensions to test.

Before discussing the research rationale, it is important to discuss some

terminology commonly used in this study. The term construct will be used in reference to

the idea and theory of organizational climate. The definition for organizational climate

used in this study is the collective perceptions of employees on their interpersonal

interactions with co-workers, supervisors, and administrators and their perceptions of

their interactions with the organization’s policies, procedures, and structures. Climate

domains are referred to in this study as the four quadrants of the Competing Values

Framework (CVF), the theoretical framework on which this study is based. The domains

embody an array of organizational climates and have different dimension characteristics

that elucidate the construct of climate. Dimension will be referred to in this study as the

characteristics that help create parameters for understanding organizational climate

4

domains there are multiple dimensions creating structure for each of the four climate

domains.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is an integral part to any study; by explaining the

theory behind the study measure, a cohesive idea about the study’s purpose is formed.

Organizational climates are varied because no two organizations are alike. Each

institution has a different set of employees, policies, procedures, and administration

impacting the variables of perception and thus, creating very unique organizational

climates.

This study is based on the competing values framework (CVF) developed by

Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), a framework designed to organize different organizational

climates into similar domains. It was developed in the early 1980s specifically for sorting

organizations into quadrants with similarly defined characteristics of organizational

climate. Based on observation, most researchers currently use the CVF to sort managers

and their managerial styles into the four CVF quadrants. Since this study does not explore

managerial styles at the ATCPHD, current models of the CVF will not be used. Instead,

the CVF model used in this study is based on the Patterson et al. 2005 model. The

Patterson et al. (2005) CVF model does not utilize the outcomes (or third) dimension of

the CVF. The CVF is important to this study, as it is the conceptual framework from

which the survey measure was developed (Patterson et al., 2005). It is the framework into

which the organizational climate of the ATCPHD will be identified and mapped;

therefore, it is key to answering the study question.

5

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review Research Methods

Studies for this literature review were found specifically on Abilene Christian

University’s online database. Advanced searches were crafted using boolean search

constructions such as “organizational climate” AND “competing values framework” to

search through dissertations, Journal Finder®, and OneSearch. Limitations were set on

results to show only “full text articles” and “peer reviewed articles.” Articles were chosen

if they directly related to organizational climate in their primary study. Other articles

were selected because they discussed climate through a critical thinking theoretical

review. Articles that could not be easily accessed through the Abilene Christian

University online database were requested from ACU’s librarians. Articles that were

older were kept, as they were primary studies in organizational climate literature that had

been cited again and again by current research.

Review of Climate Definitions

There are many different definitions of organizational climate, making it difficult

to summarize the construct in a concise manner (Imran, Saeed, Anis-ul-Haq, & Fatima,

2010; Schneider et al., 2013). The following are compilations of common definitions that

show similar and different aspects of organizational climate. Organizational climate is

often referred to as the collective perceptions of the work environment; including

interactions between individuals (Imran et al., 2010; Zweber, Henning, & Magley, 2016)

6

and individual’s interactions with an organization’s policies, practices, and structures

(Bernstrøm et al., 2013; Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2005; Zweber et al., 2016).

Some consider organizational climate to be the variable connecting an

organization’s environment and the actions of its employees. By observing this variable

researchers attempt to understand how employees perceive their workplace environment

(Jung & Lee, 2016; Patterson et al., 2005).

Organizational climate can also emerge through thoughts and perceptions when

employees naturally interact with one another (Glick 1985; Imran et al., 2010; Zweber et

al., 2016). While personal interactions between people is an important aspect of climate,

other researchers argue for a broader definition: looking at employee’s perceptions of the

organizational structure. This aspect of climate is seen when an organization’s policies

and procedures impact an employee’s work environment, which in turn impact an

individual’s perception of the organization ultimately, creating the organizational climate

(Bernstrøm et al., 2013). Researchers continue to explain this concept by stating that

organizational climate is a perceived construct of an organization and can be

acknowledged from the way an organization and that organization’s subsystems treat

their employees and their workplace environment (Hellreigel and Slocum, 1974; Kirsh,

2000).

When observing the different organizational climate definitions, common aspects

of the construct seem to repeat. The first is the employee’s perception of the collective

interactions with other employees and the second similarity is the employee’s interactions

with organizational policies and structures (Glick, 1985). Another commonality among

the collection of climate definitions is the agreement that climate is primarily a

7

descriptive field of study as opposed to an evaluative or experimental research field

(Glick, 1985; Patterson et al., 2005; Schnieder and Reichers, 1983). Other implications of

organizational climate include the idea that employees at all levels of the organization

should, in theory, have similar perceptions of the organization’s climate (Hellriegel &

Slocum, 1974).

Similarities between the many climate definitions give a vast array of dimensions

or variables thereby providing multiple means with which to measure organizational

climate. These dimensions include, but are not limited to, perception of positive

supportive relationships between employees, perception of participation in workplace

decision-making, perception of effective communication, and perception of trust among

the members of the organization and with the organization’s structure and policies

(Hargie, Tourish, & Wilson, 2002).

In conclusion, there are many different definitions of organizational climate in

literature in attempts to unify these definitions, add to climate literature, and to assist in

creating a holistic set of climate dimensions. The definition for organizational climate

used in this study is the collective perceptions of employees on their interpersonal

interactions with co-workers, supervisors, and administrators and their perceptions of

their interactions with the organization’s policies, procedures, and structures. This

definition was created by the primary investigator in the current study to bring together

important aspects of all past climate definitions in order to establish a holistic definition

that serves as a foundation for the rest of this study.

In the literature review, facets of organizational climate will be discussed as well

as the differences between organizational climate and organizational culture. Criticisms

8

of climate will also be examined along with the prolific dimensions of organizational

climate. After that, the climate domains of the CVF used as the study’s conceptual

framework will be discussed followed by a brief overview of the CVF domain

dimensions.

Units of Organizational Climate Theory

Even though a definition of organizational climate has been established, it is

important to look at all the different units of the construct. In the past, organizational

climate has been studied at different levels; the individual (or psychological) level and

the aggregate (or collective) level (Glick, 1985; Schneider et al., 2013). However, early

climate research made implication errors resulting in many different conclusions

regarding climate (Glick, 1985; Schneider et al., 2013). These mistakes centered around

what level organizational climate was being theorized and studied: the psychological

level or the collective level.

By defining the differences between these research aspects, this study will avoid

these past pitfalls. Psychological climate explained simply is an “individual’s (emphasis

added) perception of their work environment” (Benzer & Horner, 2014, p. 457). In

literature, a more in-depth explanation of psychological climate is an individual level of

analysis looking specifically at “how” [emphasis added], employees evaluate and

interpret meaning from their work environments (Patterson et al., 2005, p. 380). In the

past, the term psychological organizational climate was used to describe certain

behavioral influences such as social interactions, dealings with policies of the

organization, and situational instances (Patterson et al., 2005). However, other

researchers state that psychological climate is only a particular factor of organizational

9

climate, impacting individuals through interactions with the structure of the organization

which, in turn, impacts an individual’s work environment (Manning, 2010). This

argument implies that organizational climate is determined by the organization and not by

individuals.

Researchers are confused by whether the topic of climate refers to the

characteristics of individuals or of the organization (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974). This

study aims to clarify this confusion. The individual’s perceptions make up the core of

climate research. However, once collective individual responses are aggregated correctly,

further implications can be made about the organization as a whole. While the confusion

is understandable, there is not much difference between the aggregated perceptions of

collective individuals and the organizational climate; however, incorrect implications can

be made if the unit of measurement describing the data is not specified.

Glick (1985) clarifies this idea by explaining that organizational climate has many

different levels and when these parts are combined then organizational climate appears.

However, Glick (1985) encourages researchers to make distinctions between the levels of

organizational climate and argues that confusion in climate research lies in the fact that

there are many distinct levels (individual, subunit/subsystem, and organizational) and

each may have different research results. In order to prevent confusion and erroneous

judgments in climate research, Glick (1985) and other researchers argue that distinctions

between the levels of climate (individual, subunit/subsystem, and organizational) should

be clearly stated by using appropriate labels; this encourages precise research (Benzer &

Horner, 2014).

10

Accurate research is why Glick’s (1985) argument for specified units of

measurement is so important. Organizational climate could refer to the attributes of the

individual or of the organization; however, if specific units of measurement are not

labeled, this does not encourage good research nor does it build a good foundation for

further climate research. One person’s perception, or even one department’s perception,

of climate cannot be aggregated and have completely accurate implications for the

organization as a whole because it is not wholly representative of the organization. By

specifying what level of climate is being researched, correct implications can be made

(Glick, 1983). However, collective units (whether that be individuals as a collective or

collective departments), when aggregated can have larger organizational implications.

Aggregating data allows assumptions to be drawn from a compilation of similar

individual data resulting in a higher-level construct (Patterson et al., 2005). Patterson et

al. (2005) states

The rationale behind aggregating individual data to a unit level is the assumption

that organizational collectives have their own climate and that these can be

identified through the demonstration of significant differences in climate between

units and significant agreement in perceptions within units. Perceptual agreement

implies a shared assignment of psychological meaning allowing individual

perceptions to be aggregated and treated as a higher-level construct (p. 380).

Glick (1985) states that aggregating similar psychological (or individual’s) climate data

strengthens a holistic approach to organizational climate but cautions against how the

data is analyzed in order to keep the unit of measurement consistent and to prevent

erroneous climate inferences. In conclusion, there is agreement in literature that units of

11

measurement are important when it comes to making organizational climate implications

(Benzer & Horner, 2014).

In order to clarify and avoid implication errors, this study will clarify the unit of

measurement to be used. In order to contribute to the empirical research on organizational

climate, this study will use an organizational climate measure looking at the perceptions

of all the employees at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District. The

aggregation of many individual perceptions will then reflect the reported perceptions of

organizational climate and allow for higher-level construct implications. More detailed

information about the unit of measurement used in this study can be found in the

Methodology (p. 31).

Climate Versus Culture

Climate is a construct that is used to collectively or comprehensively convey an

individual’s perceptual interpretation of the impact of their workplace environment

(Downey et al., 1975). Organizational climate on an aggregated level has been described

as a holistic perception, or global impression, of how an organization interacts with its

members (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Patterson et al. (2005) explained the role of the

climate construct in relation to the organizational culture construct saying that climate

originates with patterned behaviors and perceptions of employees between individuals

and their relationships with one another and the organizational structures and policies,

“Thus climate can be understood as a surface manifestation of culture. . . in contrast

[culture] comes to light when employees are asked why these patterns [emphasis added]

exist” (p. 380–381).

12

It is important to define organizational culture before discussing the difference

between the organizational culture and organizational climate constructs. Patterson et al.

(2005) defines organizational culture as, “a set of shared values and norms held by

employees that guide their interactions with peers, management, and clients” (380–381).

In this definition Patterson et al. (2005) points to culture as the value compass that guides

the interactions and perceptions of employees. Unlike climate, the construct of culture

has very specific aspects on which researchers agree and on which research studies are

based. Dimensions of culture included in the definition are patterns of values, beliefs, and

norms and the deeper explanation of why these structures exist. Rostila et al. (2011)

defines organizational culture as

The normative beliefs and shared behavioral expectations in an organization

providing the supporting ideologies and justifications for the system’s norms. The

system level values and expected behaviors are products of interactions among

system members designed to collectively develop a set of socially constructed

schemas for making sense of the functions of the system (p. 40).

Rostila et al., (2011) agrees with Patterson et al. (2005) differentiation of climate and

culture, explaining that climate suggests that certain characteristics are known about an

environment whereas culture tries to figure out the shared basic assumptions of the

environment. Other researchers attempt to differentiate between climate and culture by

comparing and contrasting anthropology and psychology’s historical and methodological

differences (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). This explanation compares culture to

anthropology saying that this methodology is “descriptive and more concerned with an

organization’s archival materials, stereotypes, jargon, rituals, and symbols and is

13

characterized by a dearth of empirical research” (Thumin & Thumin, 2011, p. 105).

Organizational climate is compared to common psychology methodology, utilizing

experimental processes as evidenced by the common use of quantitative measures (e.g.,

employee surveys and rating scales) (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). Many researchers agree

with this methodological differentiation between climate and culture with organizational

culture research depending more on qualitative case studies and organizational climate

research utilizing quantitative surveys, employing quasi-experimental or cross-sectional

studies (Patterson et al., 2005; Rostila et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 2013).

Other studies report that culture norms create climate through the reactions and

perceptions of the employees that reside in the culture structure (Patterson et al., 2005;

Rostila et al., 2011). Rostila et al. (2011) clarifies this differentiation by describing

climate as more of an individual appraisal of the “pre-existing” culture structure that is

“independent” of employee’s perceptions (p. 40). Culture is a characteristic of an

organization at a holistic level while climate is the perceptions of individuals (Kirsh,

2000; Rostila et al., 2011). Mainly, culture and climate are distinctly different constructs

but are considered closely related by many who profess that climate cannot exist without

a cultural structure. Patterson et al. (2005), sums up this concept by saying that the values

and ideologies that make up the organization’s culture shape policymaking and

administrative or managerial choices in the organization ultimately impacting all levels of

the institution and consequently influencing ways individuals perceive their workplace

environment.

There are, however, researchers who claim that culture and climate constructs are

inherently the same thing, instead of overlapping but distinct ideas (Rostila et al., 2011).

14

Thumin & Thumin (2011) radically suggest that the term climate be dissolved altogether

and use culture as the holistic term. They support their argument by testifying that most

climate researchers feel as though they have been measuring organizational culture

through the aggregation of individual’s perceptions, and thus have made appropriate

estimates of organizational culture (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). While this is a very

unusual claim, some researchers empathize with this notion. Kirsh (2000) states that the

two constructs (climate and culture) study very similar facets of organization research

and both concepts should be considered as “differences in interpretation rather than

differences in the phenomenon” (p. 111). Rostila et al., (2011) summarizes this argument

stating that both constructs attempt to explain similar aspects of organizations such as

behavior or reactions in a certain environments, how the employees understand and

interpret their environment and how employees interact with one another in certain

environments.

While this argument makes sense, one major criticism posed to this ideology is

that the term climate is greatly embedded in organizational research and would be

difficult to eliminate from literature (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). With much of the

organizational climate research coming from the mid 20th century, it would be nearly

impossible to extract the climate construct and mesh it with organizational culture

research moving forward. However, Thumin & Thumin (2011) concede their argument

for culture and climate research consolidation by declaring that as organizational climate

research moves forward, the construct of climate should be considered the most important

aspect of the broad concept of organizational culture. Without the aggregated perceptions

of the employees (the exploratory research of organizational climate) it would be

15

impossible to determine organizational culture (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). For example,

without first gathering employee’s perceptions, it would be impossible to ask why the

perceptions exist (Thumin & Thumin, 2011). While this is a very convincing argument,

one must remember that these claims were created in order to support researchers unique

purposes.

The current study will base research on the theory that organizational climate is

influenced by organizational culture; but climate can be extracted from the perceptions of

employees without having to deduce the culture in which those perceptions originated.

This means that the perceptions of employees on their workplace environment will be

collected without asking why these perceptions exist (Patterson et al., 2005). This

research will merely be a cross sectional study of the organizational climate environment,

a quantitative and non-experimental exploratory research on the organizational climate of

the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District.

Criticisms on Climate

While some researchers consider climate a vital component of organizational

literature, a review of climate would be incomplete without addressing some of the

criticisms levied against this construct. One of the very obvious criticisms that this study

addresses is the abundant and disjointed definitions of climate. Throughout literature,

similar but varying definitions can be found on the topic of organizational climate; many

of which do not consistently set parameters for measurement or contribute to the growth

of the climate construct (Glick, 1985). The excess of definitions leads to disagreements

among researchers as to which dimensions should be tested and utilized in research;

16

resulting in a plethora of climate dimensions that are not consistently measured in

empirical studies (Patterson et al., 2005).

In the past, many researchers have used different methods to study climate that is

why only a few studies that look at the same dimensions of climate and why many

researchers have found it difficult to find a consistent set of dimensions from which to

create surveys. This idea is supported by Hannevick, Lone, Bjørkli, & Hoff (2014); they

state that “…there is no clear pattern showing that certain climate dimensions are

important across sectors. . . one possible explanation could be that studies have used

different theoretical foundations or lack clear theoretical foundations for their measures

of organizational climate” (p. 688). This realization leads to the second criticism of

organizational climate: the multitudes of definitions do not contribute to the

establishment of a consistent testable construct; thus, impairing the growth of literature

on the subject.

Organizational climate is a broad topic of study with which many researchers

have constructed many different variables and attributes (Glick, 1985; Hellriegel &

Slocum, 1974). This slow progress manifests itself in the overwhelming number of

dimensions that researchers pick and choose to measure. Because there is little to no

agreement on which testing dimensions are best used for climate research, there is a need

for these dimensions to be identified, narrowed down, and set with clear measurement

dimensions. Many argue that because there is a lack of cohesive organizational climate

research, the construct has not been sufficiently developed or validated and has resulted

in inconsistent conclusions, assessment methods and implications of climate; ultimately

leading to more confusing findings concerning which climate dimensions should continue

17

to be tested (Bernstrøm et al., 2013; Patterson et al., 2005). This slows the progress of

organizational climate literature and does not allow for consistent units of measurement,

observation, and analysis (Glick, 1985; Patterson et al., 2005). Progress is further slowed

when researchers suggest that certain studies should focus on only a few specific

dimensions of climate instead of a holistic approach to climate (Hannevick et al., 2014;

Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974; Schnake, 1983). While this argument has some merit, the

current study declares that this idea is common because cyclical inconclusive climate

research does not properly analyze nor contribute to the overabundance of climate

dimensions. Patterson et al. (2005) strengthens this contention saying,

While progress in understanding that dimensions of climate predict outcomes in a

variety of studies, knowledge develops haphazardly in this field in a way that

appears not to be synergistic or to lead to theory development. This is partly

because virtually every study referred to. . . use[s] a different measure of climate,

each assessing rather different dimensions. This accruing knowledge is not

cumulative…moreover, many instruments are not validated, are poorly designed,

and fail to specify the level of analysis (p. 382).

Along these same lines, a third criticism to climate includes researchers’

disagreement on what type of measurement (subjective or objective) should be utilized

for climate research (Schnake, 1983). Some also question whether or not subjective or

objective measurements are evaluating the same unit of measurement—the organization

or the individual (Schnake, 1983).

In response to this quandary regarding measurement and climate, one must refer

to the common theme in climate definitions—perceptions of employees. Some

18

researchers contend the legitimacy of subjective or perceptual research measures because,

“an individual’s affective response influences perceptions of the organizational

climate…” (Schnake, 1983, p. 802). This means that some researchers are worried that

subjectively worded measures might evoke emotional or attitudinal responses that color

the “facts” of the organization allowing opinions, instead of legitimate perceptions, to be

gathered (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974, p. 256). Schnake (1983) vehemently argues that the

purpose of climate research is to collect perceptual responses from employees, not

attitudinal or feelings towards the organization (Benzer & Horner, 2014).

While this criticism has some logical basis, Thumin & Thumin (2011) rebut

saying, “there is an inherent problem in attempting to divorce description from feeling

because the two are intimately integrated, inextricably intertwined” (p. 104). The

researchers go on to reason that, “one simply cannot describe an organizational attitude

without first perceiving it; and once it has been perceived, an arousal of meaning, an

interpretation, and an evaluation have already occurred” (Thumin & Thumin, 2011, p.

104). This means that one cannot report a perception without first having an emotional

bias attached to it (Schnake, 1983). In order to better circumvent this bias, Schnake

(1983) advocates for very specific wording in research measures in order to eliminate

emotion-evoking statements; attempting to prevent employees from reporting feelings

instead of facts. Schnake (1983) claims that in doing this climate measures, while still

subjective, will contain a more concrete objective or descriptive validity.

In contrast with Schnake (1983) attempting to make climate measures more

objective, Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) suggest that perceptual or subjective measures

on organizational climate are more desirable since objective characteristics of

19

organizations do not always directly affect employees’ behavior (Schnake, 1983).

Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) also argue that since the purpose of climate research is to

understand employee’s perceptions as exploratory and descriptive data, subjective

measures are preferable, even if attitudinal bias is inlayed into the employee responses

(Schnake, 1983).

While these arguments for the combining of climate and culture are persuasive,

the current study regards climate as a separate construct from culture. This study does not

aim to understand why perceptions exist in the organization; it only seeks to collect

employee’s perceptions.

Competing Values Framework

Figure 1. Shows the Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh.

20

The CVF seeks to create a visual and theoretical framework classifying all

possible organizational climates found in past organizational literature (Patterson et al.,

2005). Patterson et al. (2005) describes the CVF as, “[an] inclusive, robust and

theoretically based approach to the measurement of climate” (p. 382). The CVF provides

a comprehensive way to sort organizational climates into four domains, each one

representing a unique approach to organizational climate. (Hannevik et al., 2014;

Patterson et al., 2005; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). Each domain has defining

characteristics called dimensions. These dimensions portray aspects of the different

organizations and show what organizations values as far as producing desired

organizational outcomes based on employee’s perceptions (Imran et al., 2010; Patterson

et al., 2005; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). See Appendix C.

The CVF is made up of two perpendicular axis representing organizational

characteristics (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). Each axis is composed of ends that are

opposing values of a particular organizational characteristic (Imran et al., 2010; Quinn &

Rohrbaugh, 1983). The x-axis represents a sliding scale of organizational focus; from left

to right the axis is labeled as an internal person-oriented focus to an external

organizational-oriented emphasis respectively (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Quinn &

Rohrbaugh, 1983). The y-axis represents a sliding scale of organizational structure. From

bottom to top the structure axis shows a contrast between stability and control and

flexibility and change (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). These axes

intersect, creating the four domains into which organizations can then be organized.

There is a third part of the CVF; and while it is not vital to this study nor

portrayed in this study’s model, it is important to discuss all features of the framework.

21

The third part takes into account organizational means and ends, or the actions that

organizations perform in order to bring about desired outcomes. Means are the methods

and processes that organizations used in order to achieve their desired organizational

goals or outcomes (ends) (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This

third part is represented by written measurable goals and outcomes unique to each

organization and shared in certain CVF quadrants or domains (Quinn & Rohrbaugh,

1983).

Based on observation, the third part of the CVF is difficult to portray in a simple

model and takes extensive research and a thorough measure to adequately understand

whether or not an organization’s climate allows for effective and efficient means and

ends. Therefore, this study will not include the third part, as the dimension relates

specifically to outcomes. This research focuses on capturing an accurate and exploratory

snapshot of the climate at the ATCPHD. The study’s purpose is not to find out if the

organizational climate is effective and directly impacting desired outcomes. This study

will have descriptive implications, but is not specifically looking to test outcomes of the

organization.

Important Notes About the CVF

It is important to note that the creators of the CVF, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983),

state that the opposing values on the y-axis (order/control and innovation/change)

produce effective organizations when these values are in balance with one another. It is

also important to note that a single organization can simultaneously embody aspects of

the four different domains (Quinn, Hildebrant, Rogers, & Thompson, 1991). This

inherent “paradox” in the CVF creates the need to assign organizations to one main

22

quadrant while simultaneously needing organizations to have some balance in

complementary quadrants and along different axis in order fully to obtain desired

outcomes (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993).

For example, even though each end of the axis is labeled with an opposing value,

this does not mean that the values are inherent opposites or “mutually exclusive” (Ostroff

& Schmitt, 1993; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). In fact, organizations may share traits

along an axis even though the domain characteristics may seem to contradict one another;

therefore, an organization may best be represented by a certain domain but possesses

some attributes from abutting or complementary domains (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993). This

implies that when an organization is to be mapped onto the framework, that the

organization may have varying degrees of the four domains. No two people are going to

perceive the organizational climate in the exact same manner so, by taking these

variations into account; a flexible and comprehensive view of organizational climate may

be better understood (Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2005). Plotting data points in a

scatter plot acknowledges an organization’s employees to have a wide variety of

perceptions allowing for flexibility (Imran et al., 2010).

Thus, an organization as a whole might be perceived as flexible and controlled or

focused on internal factors while concurrently focusing on external factors. Not

restricting the organization to a single domain but allowing organizations to have varying

degrees of strengths between the domains, is a unique characteristic of the CVF, as it

allows comprehensive variations in views and perspectives in organizations and allows

organizations to be completely different from one another (Patterson et al., 2005; Quinn

& Rohrbaugh, 1983).

23

Now that the CVF’s purpose and functions have been elucidated, the CVF’s

domains and their corresponding dimensions will be explained.

Human Relations

The human relations approach “emphasizes internal focus and flexibility in

relationship to the environment” (Patterson et al., 2005, p. 384), placing this approach in

the top left quadrant. This approach to organizational climate favors “well-being, growth

and commitment of the community of workers within an organization” (Patterson et al.,

2005, p. 384). The human relation model emphasizes the well-being of their employees

and encourages teamwork as the means for human resource development and participant

satisfaction as ends (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993;

Patterson et al., 2005; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Internal Process

The internal process approach values stability and exhibits formalization and

internal control for efficient use of resources; bureaucracy and strict hierarchical roles are

emphasized (Patterson et al., 2005; Imran et al., 2010); placing this approach in the lower

left quadrant. Internal information management and control of communication processes

are means to an end for stability and control (Hannevik et al., 2014; Ostroff & Schmitt,

1993; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Open Systems

The open systems approach emphasizes external focus and flexible relationships

with the environment; this approach seeks to adapt the organization to the surrounding

environment, and managers seek innovative resources in response to market demands

(Patterson et al., 2005); placing this approach in the top right quadrant. Values include

24

flexibility, adaptability, and innovativeness as means for ends such as growth resource

acquisition, and external support (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Ostroff &

Schmitt, 1993; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Rational Goals

The final quadrant represents the rational goal approach. This approach has an

external focus but has tight control within the organization (Patterson et al., 2005);

placing this approach in the lower right quadrant. The means emphasized are goal

planning and goal setting specifically to reach the ends of productivity, efficiency, and

goal achievement (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993;

Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

Domain Dimensions

In attempts to better define these organizational climate domains, dimensions

have been acknowledged and defined by Patterson et al. (2005). This team of researchers

scoured past climate literature and identified dimensions most often used. Then Patterson

et al. (2005), narrowed down the prolific number of climate dimensions and selected

those that easily fit the CVF. For the domains that had no past dimensions tested in

climate research “appropriate” constructs were identified (Patterson et al., 2005, p. 385).

An uneven number for each domain reflects the complexity of the corresponding domains

(Patterson et al., 2005). Through many meetings, conceptual analysis, and psychometric

analysis, the dimensions to each domain were carefully chosen resulting in nineteen key

climate dimensions (Patterson et al., 2005). The dimensions that define the human

relations model include employee welfare, autonomy, participation, communication,

25

emphasis on training, integration, and supervisory support (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran

et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Employee welfare. Employee welfare is the extent to which the organization

values and care for the employee (Patterson et al., 2005; Gillet, Colombat,

Michinov, Pronost, & Fouquereau, 2013; Guest, 1998; Robinson and Rousseau,

1994).

• Autonomy. Autonomy is the act of designing jobs in ways that give employees

wide scope to enact work and creates an atmosphere encouraging individual

responsibility and personal growth (Patterson et al., 2005; Gillet et al., 2013).

• Participation. Participation is employees have considerable influence over

decision-making (Forde, Slater, and Spencer, 2006; Hollander and Offerman,

1990; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Communication. Communication is the free sharing of information throughout

the organization (Patterson et al., 2005).

• Emphasis on training. Emphasis on training is a concern with developing

employee skills (Morrow, Jarret, & Rupinski, 1997; Patterson et al., 2005;

Russell, Terborg, & Powers, 1985).

• Integration. Integration is the extent of interdepartmental trust, cooperation, and

problem solving (Nauta and Sanders, 2000; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Supervisory support. Supervisory support is the extent to which employees

experience support and understanding from their immediate supervisor and

26

typically has certain empirical relationships with autonomy (McCarthy,

Cleveland, Hunter, Darcy, & Grady, 2013; Patterson et al., 2005; Russell et al.,

1985).

The dimensions that define the internal process model include formalization and

tradition (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Formalization. Formalization is a concern with formal rules and procedures

(Hannevik et al., 2014; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Tradition. Tradition is the extent to which established ways of doing things are

valued (Patterson et al., 2005).

The dimensions that define the open systems model include flexibility, innovation,

outward focus, and reflexivity (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al.,

2005).

• Flexibility. Flexibility is an orientation towards change (Kuenzi and Schminke,

2009; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Innovation. The extent of encouragement and support for new ideas and

innovative approaches (Imran et al., 2010; Kuenzi and Schminke, 2009; Patterson

et al., 2005).

• Outward focus. Outward focus is the extent to which the organization is

responsive to the needs of the customer and the marketplace in general (Kiesler

and Sproull, 1982; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Reflexivity. Reflexivity is a concern with reviewing and reflecting upon

objectives, strategies, and work processes, in order to adapt to the wider

environment (Patterson et al., 2005; Schippers, West, Dawson, 2015).

27

The dimensions that define the rational goal model include clarity of

organizational goals, effort, efficiency, quality, pressure to produce, and performance

feedback (Hannevik et al., 2014; Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Clarity of organizational goals. Clarity of organizational goals is a concern with

clearly defining the goals of the organization (Patterson et al., 2005).

• Effort. Effort is how hard people in organizations work towards achieving goals

(Eisele, 2012; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Efficiency. Efficiency is the degree of importance placed on employee efficiency

and productivity at work (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Patterson et al., 2005).

• Quality. Quality is the emphasis given to quality procedures (Patterson et al.,

2005).

• Pressure to produce. The extent of pressure for employees to meet targets

(Patterson et al., 2005).

• Performance feedback. Performance feedback is the measurement and feedback

of job performance (Ben-Oz & Greve, 2012; Patterson et al., 2005).

Climate Measures

There are many different measures created to determine organizational climate.

However, very few use the exact same pre-determined dimensions to test (Pena-Suarez,

Muniz, Campillo-Alvarez, Fonseca-Pedrero, & Garcia-Cueto, 2013) making it very

problematic for researchers to use and validate the same climate measures or surveys. All

organizational climate measures study dimensions that relate to climate; some measure

only one or two dimensions while others measure up to 19 different dimensions. The

plethora of surveys include:

28

• Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Randhawa & Kuldeep, 2015)

• Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SoORC) (Martinson, Thrush, &

Crain, 2013)

• Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) (Alqarni, 2016)

• Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) (Pozveh & Karimi,

2016).

• Organizational Climate Index (OCI) (Ghavifekr & Pillai, 2016)

This is only a short list of surveys created and validated to measure climate. All of

these measures test certain dimensions relating to organizational climate. There is a great

need to consolidate these measures and dimensions and further empirical literature on one

measure. This study utilized the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM), a survey

created and validated by Patterson et al. (2005). The OCM was chosen as it consolidates

climate dimensions while simultaneously creating a holistic approach to capturing

organizational climate and is well suited for exploratory studies determining climate. The

measure was also chosen based on its availability to the public and its foundation of a

theoretical framework.

Climate studies. Not many studies have been conducted on organizational

climate solely utilizing the entire OCM on a public health district in the United States.

Typically studies of organizational climate utilize multiple measures on large

organizations most often based in European countries. Many studies utilize the OCM in

tandem with another organizational climate measures in order to find correlations

between the measures used. This is to make sure the measures are actually measuring the

desired construct adequately. Also, hypotheses may be created on the combination of

29

different measures to find significant correlations between the measures and/or constructs

(Hannevik et al., 2013; Hartmann & Rutherford, 2015; Imran et al., 2010; Lone et al.,

2014). Usually, the OCM is only used on its own when attempting to further validate the

measure.

Hannevik et al. (2014) interviewed 18 employees of a Norwegian offshore oil and

gas company. The researchers used the OCM based on the CVF, another climate

measure, and included a qualitative interview component in order to find similarities

between the two climate measures. Hannevik et al. (2013) found that all the domains of

the CVF had relevance to the company’s overall climate but the Open System model and

the Human Relations model were perceived as the most prevalent climates. These

findings support the conclusion that project based organizations function well when

flexibility within the organization and flexibility interacting with external organizational

environments is balanced (Hannevik et al., 2014).

Imran et al. (2010) surveyed managers of a project-based organization that moves

goods throughout the country of Pakistan. Two sub-measures of the OCM (the Open

Systems model and the Rational Goal model) were used to survey the climate of this

company. The aim of this study was to discover if any significant correlations between

the selected two CVF dimensions and innovative work behavior. Imran et al. (2010)

found that both the Open System model and the Rational Goal model correlated

significantly with each other and with innovative work behavior. This study supports the

idea created by Patterson et al. (2005) when developing the OCM that organizations

should not be forced into one climate quadrant but maintain the flexibility to have

strengths in each quadrant, showing the full range of climates in an organization.

30

Lone et al. (2014) used the Norwegian version of the OCM on a knowledge-based

organization. Multiple climate measures were utilized in order to see to what extent these

measures captured work-environment characteristics in a higher education organization.

Researchers held qualitative interviews with employees. These qualitative statements

were then matched to the corresponding dimension measures on the OCM and other

climate measures. Lone et al. (2014) found that the OCM could be utilized as a situation-

specific measure of the work environment in knowledge intensive organization such as

higher education because it is easily adapted to capture context-specific dimensions of a

work environment. Since more than one measure was used to capture the organizational

climate, the results show no decided climate for this Norwegian organization based on the

CVF.

Testing Variables

Before laying out plans to implement the survey measure, it is important to

consider the terms labeling what levels of climate are to be tested (Glick, 1985). Climate

can be measured on the micro, mezzo, or macro level. The testing dimension on which

this study will focus is the global approach. The OCM was created to look at climate

holistically, this allows the OCM to measure organizational climate with a global

approach. This approach differs from past climate research which looks at climate

according to certain aspects or dimensions of organizational climate such as ethical

climates or climates of innovation or organizational service climate (Dawson, Gonzales-

Roma, Davis, & West, 2008; Hannevik et al., 2014; Patterson et al., 2005).

The OCM is special as it combines all of these climate dimensions into one

measure thus creating a global approach to climate. This approach to climate research

31

aims to explore a cross sectional snapshot of the perceptions of all employees at each

level in the organization (Bernstrøm et al., 2013; Dawson et al., 2008; Patterson et al.,

2005). The OCM was created with the advantage to be given to all levels of employees

and elicit similar responses on every employee level as a result of its straightforward and

comprehensible wording. Since organizational climate is the measure of perception of an

organization as a whole, it is only right that the same measure be given to employees and

managers alike. Patterson et al. (2005) states, “…the measure is designed to be

theoretically grounded, to explicitly and consistently specify the appropriate frame of

reference, and to be applicable across a range of work settings and to target all employee

levels” (p. 383–393).

32

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The current study collected the perceptions of employees at the Abilene-Taylor

County Public Health District (ATCPHD) in order to determine the organizational

climate. It was a pre-experimental exploratory study utilizing a quantitative survey to

collect perceptions. This researcher was not interested in obtaining or meeting specific

outcomes; it was a cross-sectional study of the overall organizational climate of the

ATCPHD. This research aims to help the new health director better understand the

perception of the employees and the status of the organization’s climate. Climate research

is needed at the ATCPHD since a study on organizational climate has not yet been

conducted on a holistic level.

Participants

The eligible participants for the study were all of the employees at the ATCPHD,

from interns to directors and from new to seasoned employees. There are about 64

employees who work for the ATCPHD and all received the same survey measure via

email. An email list was collected from an administrator in early September 2016 with a

compilation of all employees’ emails at the ATCPHD (i.e., nursing/immunizations,

administration, PHEP, MERCY, WIC, epidemiology).

Data Collection Procedures

The researcher sent an application to the Abilene Christian University

International Review Board for an expedited review. Once the IRB approved the study

33

(see Appendix A), a presentation was made at the ATCPHD’s staff meeting on the

September 13th, 2016 about the purpose of the study, what data the survey intended to

collect, and the length of the survey. A drawing with two gift cards of $50 was used as

incentive was also discussed in order to encourage participation. After the presentation,

the primary investigator received permission by the health district’s director (see

Appendix B) to send the survey via email to all employees at the ATCPHD. The email

contained a brief explanation of the purpose of the study, how long the survey would take

to complete, and confidentiality and consent statements. The email also included a link to

the online survey measure and a proposed deadline on which to complete it. After one

week, another email was sent with identical material informing those who did not

complete the survey to please do so before the desired deadline.

Information collected about the employees was handled in a confidential manner

in accordance with the law. Some identifiable data may have to be shared with

individuals outside of the study team. Aside from these required disclosures, the

confidentiality of the employees was protected by not collecting identifying information

or linking identifying information with survey responses. The email insertion option at

the end of the survey went to a separate and distinct document for the purpose of the

drawing only; the option to give an email was voluntary. A drawing took place during

January 2017 at the ATCPHD staff meeting where two winners were each awarded a $50

gift card for participating in the survey. Employees were only eligible to win if they

completed the survey and entered their email address in the corresponding field at the end

of the survey. If they did not give their email address at the end of the survey, but still

completed the survey, they remain ineligible for the drawing.

34

Instrumentation

The measure used was a quantitative survey developed by Patterson et al. (2005)

and is known as the Organization Climate Measure (OCM). The OCM was found in a

public domain and permission to use this measure was requested in May of 2016 (see

Appendix E). Since then, no response has been given. However, since the measure was in

a public domain one can assume that it is available for public use. The measure has 17

subscales measuring the 19 dimensions of the four domains of the CVF. “The OCM is a

research-based and validated model of global climate found to be relevant in different

sectors. . . [and] recent findings support the relevance of the OCM in other contexts

including the health sector” (Dawson et al., 2008; Hannevik et al., 2014, p. 689).

Patterson et al. (2005) developed the OCM by identifying dimensions of climate found in

past literature that fit with the four domains of the CVF. After the dimensions for each

domain were narrowed down and chosen, 10 items were generated for the climate

dimensions (Patterson et al., 2005).

During the pilot study, each dimension set was reduced and revised so that only

the items that yielded strong responses were left (Patterson et al., 2005). Then, after some

further examination for “inter-item correlations and semantic context,” the items were

assigned a 4-point Likert scale: 1) definitely false 2) mostly false 3) mostly true and 4)

definitely true. The dimension questions were then refined by consolidating similar

factors resulting in 17 distinct scales measuring all 19 climate domain dimensions

(Patterson et al., 2005, p. 387, 389).

Using the OCM also builds a foundation for further research to be performed on

specific and interesting climate facet findings (Bernstrøm et al., 2013; Patterson et al.,

35

2005). Thus, the reasons for using the OCM as the study’s survey are three-fold. First, the

OCM is a macro or global measure of organizational climate allowing organizational

climate to be aggregated as a higher-level construct (Bernstrøm et al., 2013) ensuring the

desired global approach to answer the study question, what is the organizational climate

of the ATCPHD? Secondly, since no holistic organizational climate research has ever

been conducted on the ATCPHD, using the global approach in order to capture a cross-

sectional view of the organization’s climate was needed. Since, a foundation for climate

research has been created at the ATCPHD, further climate research can be administered

on either the multidimensional or area specific testing domains. Finally, by using the

OCM to the fullest extent, this research will add to the literature surrounding the measure,

thereby increasing the empirical research associated with it.

Patterson et al. (2005) reports that the OCM has a mean alpha score of .811 with

the subscales alpha’s ranging from .67–.91. This shows that the measure has adequate

internal consistency (reliability) with each scale measuring the constructs of relevance

(Patterson et al., 2005).

The measurement(s) included in the study were the organizational climate

measure (OCM) (see Appendix D) and a simple demographic questionnaire. The OCM

measured the four quadrants of climate (according to the CVF) via 82 questions that

comprise the 17 subscales. These questions were not randomly arranged, as seen in

Patterson et al. (2005), so the subscales were kept grouped together.

The demographic measure was four questions long and surveyed employees to

see 1) how long they have worked for the ATCPHD, 2) their department, 3) their age,

and 4) their gender. The demographic survey was posed as multiple-choice questions at

36

the end of the survey with an other option for participants to fill-in-the-blank with more

specific answers if they wished. These demographics were chosen for this survey because

they are not so specific that identifying information could be gathered from the responses,

but they were specific enough to run cross-sectional analysis on the survey responses to

see how different groups in the ATCPHD respond and perceive the organization in which

they work.

Analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for all statistical

analysis. Some charts, tables, and graphs were created in Microsoft Excel. First, the

demographic information was analyzed for frequencies within the responses. Means tests

were utilized to compare groups by demographics and their corresponding mean scores.

This cross-sectional examination of the results revealed whether the employee’s of the

ATCPHD have similar perceptions of the organization’s climate.

The scoring process for the survey was simple. The higher the numerical response

to the scales the more likely employees perceive that specific climate at the ATCPHD.

The lower the numerical response meant that employees do not perceive that particular

climate at the ATCPHD. The responses are plotted on a graph encompassing all four

domains of the CVF (see Graph 1.0 and Appendix C). The highest mean shows the

perceived organizational climate at the ATCPHD.

37

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS/RESULTS

The findings included in this section are purely exploratory. The tests run on the

data were specifically chosen to answer the study question, “According to the competing

values framework, what is the current organizational climate of the Abilene-Taylor

County Public Health District?” These tests also aim to explore demographic cross-

sectional snapshots of the employees’ perceptions about their workplace environment.

First the demographic findings will be stated, followed by the study findings and other

interesting findings, respectively.

Demographic Findings

There are 64 employees at the ATCPHD and all 64 employees were invited to

participate in the study. There were 45 responses with an initial response rate of 70%.

However, only 40 responses were valid making the final response rate of 62.5%. The five

responses that were not used in the study were invalid because participants did not

complete the survey. In order to find the demographic results, a frequency test was run on

SPSS. The majority of participants working at the ATCPHD for 1–3 years had a

population percent of 40%. Employees working for 10 or more years at the ATCPHD

made up 30% of participants. While employees working less than a year and employees

working 5–10 years trailed behind with participant percentages of 17.5% and 12.5%,

respectively. See Figure 2.

38

The majority of employees who participated in the study work in the

Immunizations/Nursing department of the ATCPHD and had a valid participation percent

of 32.5%. The Women Infants and Children (WIC) department at the ATCPHD made up

25% of the participants. The administration department at the ATCPHD made up 22.5%

of the participants. The MERCY Clinic and PHEP/Epidemiology followed with 12.5%

and 7.5% of participants, respectively. See Figure 3.

The ages of employees were surveyed in the study. Results show a very even

spread of ages among employees who participated with the age groups of 36–50 and 51–

70 each making up 35% of the participant population. The 20–35 age group followed

with 30% of the participant population. See Figure 4.

80% of the participant population for this study were female with the remaining

20% being male. See Figure 5.

Figure 2. Shows the years worked at the ATCPHD.

17%

40% 13%

30%

Years Worked at ATCPHD

Less than a year

1-3 Years

5-10 Years

10+ Years

39

Figure 3. Answers the demographic question, “In which department at the Abilene–Taylor County Public Health District do you work?”

Figure 4. Shows the reported age of employees who participated in the study.

22%

12%

33%

25%

8%

In which department at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District do you work?

Administration

MERCY

Immunizations/Nursing

WIC

PHEP/Epidemiology

30%

35%

35%

Age of Participants

20-35

36-50

51-70

40

Figure 5. Shows the reported gender of employees who participated in the study.

Study Findings

In order to answer the study question, “According to the competing values

framework, what is the climate of the Abilene–Taylor County Public Health District?”

descriptives were run on SPSS. Results show that the climate of the Abilene–Taylor

County Public Health District was mainly a Human Relations climate with a mean of

79.225. The Rational Goal Model climate was the second highest reported climate with a

mean of 72.350. The figure below depicts the means of the four climate domains at the

ATCPHD. The climate means are graphed onto the CVF domains; these are the numbers

in the four corners of the graph. The circles surrounding the intersecting axes represent

the standard deviations of all four climate means; these circles are labeled along the y-

axis. This graph is used as a representation of the mean perceptions of employees at the

ATCPHD. This gives a visual of the various degrees of the four climates at the

ATCPHD. See Figure 6 below and in Appendix C.

20%

80%

Reported Gender of Participants

Male

Female

41

A t-test was administered on SPSS to see if the Human Relations climate model

mean and the Rational Goal climate model mean were significantly different from one

another. Findings show that the numbers are statistically different. See Table 1.

Figure 6. Answers the study question, “What is the climate of the ATCPHD?”

42

Table 1

Shows descriptive statistics of the Human Relations and Rational Goal climates and shows that the means are significantly different from one another.

Mean Std. Deviation N

Human Relations 79.2250 12.46634 40

Internal Process 24.8250 3.59407 40

Open Systems 46.4000 9.49170 40

Rational Goal 72.3500 10.54307 40

Other Findings

A reliability test was administered in SPSS to find the internal consistency of the

OCM. Results showed that the OCM has an internal consistency of 96.6%. See Table 2.

Table 2

Shows the reliability statistics for internal consistency of OCM.

Cronbach’s

Alpha

N of

Items

.966 82

More reliability tests were administered to find internal consistency of all 17

scales. The results are shown in Table 3. All the scales show good internal consistency.

43

Table 3

Reflects the internal consistency of all OCM Scales.

Internal Consistency for all OCM Scales

Scale Cronbach’s Alpha

Scale Cronbach’s Alpha

OCM 0.966

Autonomy 0.759

Human Relations 0.940

Integration 0.760

Involvement 0.772

Supervisory Support 0.825

Training 0.835

Welfare 0.933

Formalization 0.872Internal Process 0.648

Tradition 0.825

Innovation and Flexibility 0.919

Open Systems 0.946Outward Focus 0.848

Reflexivity 0.901

Clarity of Organizational Goals

0.914

Rational Goal 0.917

Efficiency 0.900

Effort 0.903

Performance Feedback 0.865

Pressure to Produce 0.790

Quality 0.822

44

An ANOVA test was run comparing all four climate domains with one another.

The test resulted in significant correlations between the Human Relations, Rational

Goals, and Open Systems climates. These correlations between Human Relations, Open

Systems, and Rational Goals climate were all moderately significant. However, Internal

Process was not significantly correlated with the other climates. See Table 8.

Table 4

Shows the correlations between the perceived climates at the ATCPHD.

Correlations Human

RelationsInternal Process

Open Systems

Rational Goal

Human Relations

Pearson Correlation

1 .095 .806** .755**

Sig. (2–tailed) .558 .000 .000

Internal Process

Pearson Correlation

.095 1 .031 .220

Sig. (2–tailed) .558 .847 .173

Open Systems

Pearson Correlation

.806** .031 1 .776**

Sig. (2–tailed) .000 .847 .000

Rational Goal

Pearson Correlation

.755** .220 .776** 1

Sig. (2–tailed) .000 .173 .000 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2–tailed).

Reported Climate by Demographic

Separate means tests were administered for each demographic to determine the

primary organizational climate for each demographic group. The primary climates are

represented by the highest mean. All of the demographics reflect agreement for the

Human Relations climate as the majority climate at the ATCPHD. Each demographic

also shows agreement in the secondary climate of the Rational Goal model. When the

45

demographics analyzed cross-sectionally, the PHEP/Epidemiology department reported

the Rational Goal model climate as the majority climate with a mean of 87.33 with the

secondary organizational climate of Human Relations with a mean of 86.33. See Tables

5, 6, 7, and 8.

Table 5

Shows primary perceived organizational climate by years worked at the ATCPHD.

How long have you worked for the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District?

Human Relations

Internal Process

Open Systems

Rational Goal

Less than a year Mean 83.8571 26.0000 50.8571 78.5714

N 7 7 7 7

1–3 years Mean 76.4375 25.1875 44.0000 68.8750

N 16 16 16 16

5–10 years Mean 84.4000 25.0000 47.6000 74.0000

N 5 5 5 5

10+ years Mean 78.0833 23.5833 46.5000 72.6667

N 12 12 12 12

Total Mean 79.2250 24.8250 46.4000 72.3500

N 40 40 40 40

46

Table 6

Shows primary perceived organizational climate by department at ATCPHD.

In which department at the Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District do you work?

Human Relations

Internal Process

Open Systems

Rational Goal

Administration Mean 81.5556 24.7778 49.5556 71.8889

N 9 9 9 9

MERCY Clinic Mean 77.0000 27.4000 42.2000 69.8000

N 5 5 5 5

Immunizations/ Nursing

Mean 74.4615 24.3846 42.4615 67.8462

N 13 13 13 13

WIC Mean 82.3000 23.6000 48.2000 75.4000

N 10 10 10 10

PHEP/ Epidemiology

Mean 86.3333 26.6667 55.0000 87.3333

N 3 3 3 3

Total Mean 79.2250 24.8250 46.4000 72.3500

N 40 40 40 40

47

Table 7

Shows primary perceived organizational climate by age at the ATCPHD.

Please specify your age

Human Relations

Internal Process

Open Systems

Rational Goal

20–35 Mean 83.5833 24.5000 48.9167 72.8333

N 12 12 12 12

36–50 Mean 77.0000 25.5714 44.7143 72.3571

N 14 14 14 14

51–70 Mean 77.7143 24.3571 45.9286 71.9286

N 14 14 14 14

Total Mean 79.2250 24.8250 46.4000 72.3500

N 40 40 40 40

Table 8

Shows primary perceived organizational climate by gender at the ATCPHD.

Please specify your gender

Human Relations

Internal Process

Open Systems

Rational Goal

Male Mean 85.5000 25.0000 52.8750 80.7500

N 8 8 8 8

Female Mean 77.6563 24.7813 44.7813 70.2500

N 32 32 32 32

Total Mean 79.2250 24.8250 46.4000 72.3500

N 40 40 40 40

48

CHAPTER V

DISSCUSSION/FINDINGS

Discussion of Findings

In order to understand what the findings imply for the ATCPHD, a clear

understanding of the four cardinal points of the CVF is imperative. The x-axis, from left

to right, represents a continuum of organizational focus from internal person-oriented

focus to an external organizational-oriented focus, respectively. The Y-axis, from north

to south, represents a continuum of organizational structure. This means that the top and

bottom of the axis shows contrasting organizational focuses between flexibility and

change and stability and control, respectively. These labeled axes represent different

perceived organizational traits. The intersecting lines create four quadrants, which

represent the four major organizational climates. Please see Appendix C.

The Human Relations quadrant or domain of the CVF has dimensions relating to

employees’ perceptions of how well their supervisors and the organization as a whole

cares for them individually, how much independence they have in making decisions and

completing tasks, and how well departments interact. The Rational Goal model quadrant

has dimensions relating directly to the quality and efficiency of services at the agency. It

also has dimensions determining whether or not employees clearly understand

organizational goals and gives feedback on employee’s effort and quality of services

provided. The Open Systems model has dimensions focusing on how well the

organization responds to changing external environments. This includes a level of

49

innovation of services to the public. The Internal Process model has dimensions

pertaining mainly to formal rules and regulations, tradition, and communication within

the organizational hierarchy.

Human relations climate was the primary perceived climate by the employees at

the ATCPHD as evidenced by the highest mean out of all four quadrants of 79.225. The

responses show that employees scored the human relations approach consistently higher

than the other quadrants when completing the OCM. The average response to the

questions regarding the human relations climate was significantly higher than the

responses regarding the remaining climates when demographics were analyzed cross-

sectionally.

This data answers the exploratory study question undoubtedly; the primary

perceived climate at the ATCPHD is the Human Relations approach. This implies that

employees at the ATCPHD perceive that the organization cares about their personal

wellbeing and focuses much of the organization’s energies on encouraging teamwork and

achieving human resource development as end goals (Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993; Patterson

et al., 2005; Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983) within the organization. This also suggests that

the ATCPHD has very flexible internal structures and rules concerning the wellness of

their employees.

A potential reason for why employees perceive Human Relations climate more

highly than the other climates, could possibly be contributed to the fact that the majority

of the participants in the study (57% of participants) had only been working at the

ATCPHD for less than a year (17% of participants) and one to three years (40% of

50

participants). This perceived well being by the organization could be a lingering effect of

the organization’s attempts to retain employees.

A high perception of Human Relations climate in the more seasoned employees

could potentially imply that a climate valuing employee welfare could potentially be

successful for retaining employees and creating employee satisfaction.

The Rational Goals model was also highly perceived in comparison to the

remaining climates at the ATCPHD with a mean of 72.350. This implies that the Rational

Goal model climate is also widely perceived at the ATCPHD, second only to the Human

Relations model. The Rational Goals climate focuses on setting goals in order to be more

productive (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). The organizational structure is typically very

stable and controlled, and the organizational focus is externally oriented. This implies

that the ATCPHD values setting goals and focusing the organization on providing

efficient services to external environments. Having a high perception of the Rational

Goals climate also suggests that employees clearly understand the goals of the overall

organization and put forth enough effort to complete their job tasks efficiently. It also

indicates an organizational desire to produce efficient services as an end goal.

The ATCPHD scored Open Systems climate moderately with a mean of 46.400.

Open Systems climate values a very flexible organizational structure and an external

organizational focus (Hannevik et al., 2014; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). This climate

focuses on innovating services to the external changing environment. A highly perceived

Open Systems climate suggests that an organization is very responsive or reflective to the

changes happening around the organization and tailors their services to fit the changing

external demands. The Open Systems was only moderately perceived at the ATCPHD,

51

which indicates that employees do not always perceive that the ATCPHD values

innovation. Nor do the employees perceive that the organization adequately adapts

services to surrounding environmental demands.

The health district is a public organization, therefore, its fundamental purpose is

to focus on the surrounding community. This fact could potentially be a huge impact on

the reasons employees at the ATCPHD report strong perceptions towards the Rational

Goal Model. Furthermore, these findings could also imply that the organization is true to

its core values of making goals in order to follow rules and regulations set down by

funders. This conclusion could also give meaning to the reasons the ATCPHD perceives

that there is little innovation in relation to its environment. As with most government-

funded agencies, there are rules and stipulations on the use of grant money potentially

impacting innovation at the ATCPHD.

The Internal Process model was the lowest scored climate at the ATCPHD with a

mean of 24.825. The Internal Process climate has a very internal organizational focus

with a very stable and controlled organizational structure; valuing hierarchical roles and

controlled communication (Hannevik et al., 2014; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). An

organization scoring high in this quadrant would perceive the climate to have very

controlled communication throughout the organizational hierarchy. Since the ATCPHD

did not perceive this climate dominant, this implies that the communication at the

ATCPHD is not used as a means to an end. Communication could potentially take place

most often informally, frequently bypassing hierarchical, or formal channels. This is a

trend seen in organizations with more freedom in the organizational structure (as

reflected in the Human Relations climate model); administration does not function as

52

often through formal channels (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974). Scoring this climate low

could also suggest that the employees at the ATCPHD perceive that tradition is not

valued and changes frequently and that communication is not used as a means to achieve

organizational outcomes.

One might think that Internal Process climate might be perceived less at the

ATCPHD due to the fact that there are so many new employees at the ATCPHD that

tradition might not be valued as much. However, participants who had been working for

the health district for shorter periods of time rated Internal Process climate higher than

seasoned employees. Another reason for Internal Process to be perceived lower than

other climates could be due to the fact that there was not a health director for a few

months before this study was conducted. This lack of hierarchical control and internal

disruption could explain why the organization as a whole, especially more seasoned

employees, perceived Internal Process climate lower than other organizational climates.

In summary, based on the findings in this study the ATCPHD perceives that the

organization cares for their wellbeing as individual employees but considers

communication within the organization to be informal. Employees also perceive that

there is not much innovation when it comes to providing services to clients, but perceive

that the organization strives to set and maintain goals.

Interesting Findings

It is interesting that means testing for all climate domains by the demographics

showed that all demographics reported similar perceived climates. This indicates that in

general, all the ATCPHD has a strong organizational climate since the employees were in

53

agreement on the perceived climate (Patterson et al., 2005; Schneider et al., 2013). Not

one demographic had a highly skewed perception of the organizational climate.

A possible explanation for a strong organizational climate consensus could be the

result of changes happening at the health district. If disruption of the workplace

environment was not taking place, employees might be more secluded in their own

departments and not interacting with each other as often resulting in many different

perceptions of climate. Also, seasoned employees might show a very different

perspective of the organization compared to newer employees if there was no disruption

happening in the workplace. In conclusion, change might be the key factor for why the

whole organization, in every demographic, has a strong perceptual agreement of the

organizational climate.

In contrast, since the health district is a small organization, the perceptions of

climate could be in strong agreement due to the fact that employees interact with all

levels of the organization on a daily basis and the departments are small and thus less

diverse, a strong sense of climate is very typical (Dawson et al., 2008; Schneider et al.,

2013). Dawson et al. (2008) argues that when employees all perceive climate similarly it

does not always contribute to effective organizations. This argument could imply that the

ATCPHD mainly employs people with very similar personal views and opinions

(Dawson et al., 2008). In this way, having a strong organizational climate could

discourage peripheral perspectives or ideas, ultimately deterring innovation (Dawson et

al., 2008). In order to limit saturated opinions and encourage new ideas, a balance must

be struck between strong organizational climate perceptions and weak organizational

climate perceptions. This will ultimately allow for an array of different ideas to

54

encourage innovation in services but retain an adequate of amount of similar perceptions

among employees in order for the work to be accomplished (Dawson et al., 2008).

However, some studies show that more unified and consistent perceived

organizational climate relates to organizational performance and could potentially

increase the likelihood of achieving organizational outcomes (Hellriegel & Slocum,

1974; Schneider et al., 2013). According to this ideology, the ATCPHD has a high

likelihood of achieving organizational goals (Schneider et al., 2013).

Other interesting findings include how the different departments perceive the

organizational climates. Departments who mostly work independently from the main

services of the ATPHCD such as the MERCY clinic and the Epidemiology and PHEP

departments scored the Internal Process climate slightly higher than the other

departments. This is very interesting considering that these departments typically

function separately from the main workforce at the ATCPHD, one might assume they

would perceive hierarchical roles of the whole organization less than that of other

departments. Furthermore, MERCY clinic is a relatively new department at the ATCPHD

and the PHEP/Epidemiology department has a multiple new members, this might impact

the perception of organizational tradition negatively.

On the other hand, potential reasons for why these departments scored Internal

Process climate higher than other climates could include the fact that these departments

function separately from the main body of the health district and could result in these

departments perceiving a higher formal hierarchy within their own departments rather

than in the whole organization. Also, since these departments are new or have multiple

55

new members and function separately from the main health district, distinct departmental

tradition could be forming separately from the whole organization.

The reliability and internal consistency of the scales of the OCM used in this

study was .966 and is comparable to the high reliability that Patterson et al. (2005) found,

which was .811. Since there is no concrete rule about preferred correlations between

measures, this study assumes a high reliability and internal consistency within scales is

preferable, as it reflects that the scales testing a construct will generate similar results

(Dawson et al., 2008; Thumin & Thumin, 2011). The high reliability of scales found in

this study shows that the scales are highly homogeneous, and therefore it is assumed that

it will measure the construct consistently (Abu-Bader, 2011).

Other interesting findings for this study include the ANOVA test results of the

four climates showing correlations between the Human Relations, Rational Goals, and

Open Systems climates. These correlations between Human Relations, Open Systems,

and Rational Goals climate were all significant, meaning that there is a moderate

predictable relationship between these climates at the ATCPHD. When one climate goes

up, the significant correlations imply that predictions involving the other two climates

might be moderately accurate. This might be important when measuring only one climate

whilst making implications for the other significantly related climates. However, Internal

Process climate was not significantly correlated with the other climates meaning that

there is no relationship between this climate and the other three climates. This ultimately

does not support knowledgeable predictions for this climate if research focuses on other

climates.

56

Consistent with Literature

The results reflect the generalizability of the OCM to all levels of employees

(Patterson et al., 2005). The responses given in this study, when viewed cross-sectionally

by department, revealed similar results within all employee levels at the ATCPHD. This

is how the OCM was created to function; by using the OCM on all levels in this study,

results validate the use of the OCM at all employee levels in an organization.

This study aimed to help validate the OCM using a comprehensive framework

and to consolidate the climate dimensions tested in literature. This is exactly what

Schneider et al. (2013) suggested in order to further the empirical research on climate.

This study helped validate a comprehensive climate measure grounded in a theoretical

framework looking at climate from a global approach as suggested by Schneider et al.

(2013) and Patterson et al. (2005).

The study’s results are consistent with the ways the CVF was created to function

because there is great variability within the climates (Imran et al., 2010; Patterson et al.,

2005; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). For example, past studies suggest that the CVF allows

organizations to have varying degrees of the four climates’ traits (Imran et al., 2010;

Patterson et al., 2005). This is definitely seen in this study where the Human Relations,

Rational Goals, and Open Systems climate all have significant correlations with one

another. Because there are so many significant correlations across the quadrants, this

implies that the ATCPHD has a somewhat balanced organizational climate potentially

contributing to organizational effectiveness (Patterson et al., 2005).

This study is different from many past climate studies as it does not utilize

multiple climate measures to measure construct similarities. The current study utilizes

57

only one climate measure in order to explore an organization’s climate, not to test

hypotheses (Hannevik et al., 2013; Hartmann & Rutherford, 2015; Imran et al., 2010;

Lone et al., 2014). Also, this research looks at a small public organization in the United

States, an undertaking not often seen in climate research (Dawson et al., 2008). The novel

structure of this study fills literature gaps on exploring organizational climates of United

States Public Health Districts.

Strengths

This study reflects empirically grounded theory as it follows suggestions to fill

literature gaps from leaders in the organizational climate field such as consolidating

climate definitions (Schneider et al., 2013) and dimensions (Patterson et al., 2005;

Schneider et al., 2013) while helping validate the OCM’s reliability. This study also had a

high response rate and was able to answer the study question clearly.

Limitations

Four questions on the 82-question measure (4.8% of questions) were erroneously

repeated during the survey. This affects the internal consistency and reliability, making it

a little more skewed than Patterson et al. (2005). Also, since the measure items were not

randomly arranged the reliability of the dimensions could potentially be inflated.

Typically, when similar questions are grouped together respondents tend to use the same

reasoning when answering the questions thus linking the questions to similar

circumstances and potentially inflating correlations between constructs (Bernstrøm et al.,

2013; Goodhue & Loiacono, 2002). However, other research does not support that

conclusion with findings supporting the ideas that there are some psychometric

advantages to finding characteristics of work environments when item measures are

58

grouped together or little to no impact on correlation inflation (Bernstrøm et al., 2013;

Schell & Oswald, 2013). Even with the repeated questions and the grouped item

measures, the validity and internal consistency numbers (.966) are very comparable to

Patterson et al. (2005) (.811). The measure still produced legitimate and significant

answers to the study question.

One impactful limitation to this study is the fact that the results show such a

global picture of organization climate, this results vaguely reasoned implications.

Collecting such an enormous snapshot of organizational climate without running

statistical analysis on specific climate dimensions creates a disadvantage when attempting

to describe useful implications for the organization, policy, and further research.

In the demographic questionnaire included in the survey, the question pertaining

to years worked at the ATCPHD did not give an option for participants to state they had

worked there for four years. The rate of participants who worked at the ATCPHD for four

years is unknown.

Other limitations comprise other sources of possible bias. This includes the fact

that the principle investigator in this research worked for a year at the ATCPHD as a

student intern. This could have had an impact on how participants responded to the

survey. It could have also impacted who decided to participate in the study. The principle

investigator in the study worked at the main campus of the health district with many of

the administrators, the PHEP/Epidemiologist department, and the nursing/immunizations

department. That personal interaction might explain why a higher percentage of these

departments participated in the study. This possible source of bias was not controlled for

in the study.

59

CHAPTER VI

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study does not aim to put a label, positive or negative, on

organizational climate, its primary purpose is to determine the climate of the ATCPHD;

meaning that any implications given in this study are merely suggestions on how to

improve the weaker perceived organizational climates if the organization so desires.

However, by improving the weaker perceived climates, a balanced could be found in the

organization thus potentially achieving organizational efficiency and effectiveness

(Ostroff & Schmitt, 1993).

Organization Implications and Research

Based on the findings, the ATCPHD cares very strongly for its employees and

values the creation of organizational goals. However, the ATCPHD perceives innovation

of services to be weak and communication to be informal within the organization. If the

ATCPHD desires to strengthen their formal communication, an indicator of a successful

project-based organization (Hannevik et al., 2014) they could potentially draw on their

strengths of caring for their employees and goal setting. Since they are adept at setting

goals, new organizational policies could be implemented at the ATCPHD to better

establish formal communication.

Formal communication could be instituted by creating communication channels

through which lower level employees must first talk to their supervisor before going to

administration with a problem or question. This would require supervisors to be more

60

hands on with ideas and problems from their associates; ultimately this could establish

hierarchical communication channels. It would reduce the amount of every day trivial

matters that administration becomes involved in, ultimately slowing work. Enforcing

formal communication administration could focus on strategic planning and perhaps even

give more time to innovative services. New policies like this could potentially succeed

because the employees perceive that the ATCPHD cares for them. Communication

channels could easily be utilized by employees since they perceive that their supervisors

and the organization as a whole, supports them and values their input.

If the ATCPHD wishes for better innovation in their services, employees and

administration at the ATCPHD could apply their goal setting strengths by consistently

identifying new and changing clientele needs. A program evaluation of the health district

services could be very beneficial. This evaluation would not only be a SWOT analysis

but could also integrate focus groups of the health district clients in order to determine if

they are receiving services that meet the needs of the community. After ascertaining the

needs in the community and potential gaps in services, less effective programs could be

adapted or restructured to provide needed services to clients in the Abilene-Taylor county

area.

However, since government grant money does not always allow for creative uses,

other innovative actions could include proactive approaches to collaboration with other

local health organizations. These collaborations could share ideas and data in order to

track health trends and continually innovate services to fill the gaps in health services in

the Abilene-Taylor County area.

61

Further Research

Additional research on the OCM and CVF should be conducted to determine if

the trend of most commonly perceived organizational climate relates directly to the

amount of questions for each quadrant. For example, the most perceived organizational

climate at the ATCPHD, the Human Relations climate, was the climate that had the most

associated questions. This trend continued for the remaining three climates, Rational

Goals climate had the second highest number of questions, then Open Systems climate,

then Internal Process climate. By researching this interesting find, the OCM could be

confidently employed as a holistic and stand-alone measure well suited for exploratory

studies on organizational climate.

More research needs to be conducted at the ATCPHD in order to determine

whether or not the current climate is the best fit to reach the desired outcomes of the

organization. This research would center around the outputs or outcomes of the ATCPHD

looking specifically at the means that are utilized to reach organizational goals or ends.

From this research implications could be drawn about the fit of the climate to the desired

outputs of the organization. If the means and ends of the organization do not match with

their desired goals, then perhaps some changes should be made within the organization’s

climate in order to better reach those goals. Finding the means and ends of organizations

would be done by testing one climate domain of the CVF (using the OCM) at a time,

looking specifically at the reliability between the dimensions of the corresponding

climate domain.

Other research that could potentially inform the ATCPHD on specific climate

implications would be to study the dimensions of the climates further. This research

62

would look, not only at the climates perceived at the ATCPHD, but which corresponding

dimensions are perceived the most. This could assist the health district in discovering

strengths and weaknesses relating to climate. It would be interesting to see the differences

between perceived dimensions among the different demographics at the health district.

While the overall climate followed the same perception trend throughout the tested

demographics, it would be interesting to see if demographics have significant differences

in their perceptions of the climate dimensions.

By performing statistical analysis on the dimensions associated with each climate,

correlations might be found among the dimensions that could give a more detailed

description about the climate at the ATCPHD.

Further research that the ATCPHD could perform, in relation to organizational

climate, could potentially be to research the perceptions of clients on the climate at the

health district. This research could provide interesting insights for the innovation of

services and if organizational goals are being thoroughly met. This research could utilize

client satisfaction surveys to inform better organizational outcomes and could potentially

increase organizational innovation.

More research could potentially be conducted on organizational climate, focusing

mainly on whether an organization would run more efficiently if a balance of all climates

were perceived by an organization. Another suggestion for further climate research,

relating to balanced climates, is the unexplored area on multiple organizational climates

and the impacts of that on organizations (Schneider et al., 2013).

It would also be interesting to see variance of organizational climates between

other governmental agencies. There is not much holistic organizational climate research

63

conducted on United States governmental organizational climates, particularly public

health. It would be interesting to see if the pattern of climates is similar across

governmental agencies in the United States.

Overall, more research on organizational climate should be conducted including a

qualitative interview component. This research element could add depth and

understanding to organizational climate and determine if quantitative climate measures

accurately reflect employees’ perceptions of their work environment.

Conclusion

In conclusion this study aimed to determine the organizational climate of the

Abilene-Taylor County Public Health District according to the Competing Values

Framework. By utilizing the Organizational Climate Measure, accurate global

perceptions were gathered from the ATCPHD. The study found that the primary

perceived organizational climate at the ATCPHD was the Human Relations climate

followed moderately by the Rational Goals model climate. High perceptions in these

climates indicate that the ATCPHD values the wellbeing of its employees and setting

goals. It also implies that the ATCPHD desires to achieve employee satisfaction and

productivity and efficiency. Implications from these findings include, strengthening

weaker perceived organizational climates in order to achieve full organizational potential.

In order to achieve full potential, the organization should increase the value of structured

communication and continue to find innovative ways to provide services to the

community.

64

REFERENCES

Abu-Bader, S. H. (2011). Using statistical methods in social science research: With a

complete SPSS guide. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.

Alqarni, S. A. Y. (2016). Linking organizational health in Jeddah secondary schools to

students’ academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(7), 328–

338.

Ben-Oz, C., & Greve, H. R., Short- and long-term performance feedback and absorptive

capacity. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1827–1853.

Benzer, J., & Horner, M. (2014). A meta-analytic integration and test of psychological

climate and dimensionality. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 457–482.

Bernstrøm, V. H., Lone, J. A., Bjørkli, C. A., Ulleberg, P., & Hoff, T. (2013). Assessing a

Norwegian translation of the organizational climate measure. Psychological

Reports: Human Resources & Marketing, 112(2), 390– 407.

Dawson, J. F., Gonzales-Roma, V., Davis, A., & West, M. A. (2008). Organizational

climate and climate strength in UK hospitals. European Journal of Work and

Organization Psychology, 17(1), 89–111.

Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Congruence between individual

needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 18(1), 149–155.

65

Eisele, P. (2012). Improving performance in groups: Effects of two different goal-setting

strategies and feedback of brainstorming performance. Baltic Journal of

Psychology, 13(1,2), 45–57.

Forde, C., Slater, G., & Spencer, D. A. (2006). Fearing the worst? Threat, participation,

and workplace productivity. Economic and Industrial democracy, 27(3), 369–398.

Ghavifekr, S., & Pillai, N. S. (2016). The relationship between school’s organizational

climate and teacher’s job satisfaction: Malaysian experience. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 17, 87–106.

Glick, W.H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological

climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3),

601–616.

Goodhue, D. L., & Loiacono, E. T. (2002). Randomizing survey question order vs.

grouping questions by construct: An empirical test of the impact on apparent

reliabilities and links to related constructs. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.

Guest, D.E. (1998). Is taking the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 19, 649–664.

Hannevik, M. B., Lone, J. A., Bjørklund, R., Bjørkli, C. A., & Hoff, T. (2014).

Organizational climate in large scale projects in the oil and gas industry: A

competing values perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 32,

687–697.

66

Hartman, N. N., & Rutherford, B. N. (2015). Psycholgical contract breach’s antecedents

and outcomes in salespeople: The roles of psychological climate, job attitudes,

and turnover intention. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 158–170.

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research,

and contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 255–280.

Hollander, E.P., & Offerman, L.R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:

Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179–189.

Imran, R., Saeem, T., Anis-ul-Haq, M., & Fatima, A. (2010). Organizational climate as a

predictor of innovative work behavior. African Journal of Business Management,

4(15), 3337–3343.

Jung, C. S., & Lee, G. (2016). Organizational climate, leadership, organizational size, and

aspiration for innovation in government agencies. Public Performance &

Management Review, 39, 757–782.

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments:

Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 27, 548–570.

Kirsh, B. (2000). Organizational culture, climate and person-environment fit:

Relationships with employment outcomes for mental health consumers. Work, 14,

109–122.

Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review,

critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate

literature. Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717.

67

Lone, J. A., Bjørklund, R. A., Østerud, K. B., Anderssen, L. A., Hoff, T., & Bjørkli, C. A.

(2014). Assessing knowledge-intensive work environment: General versus

situation-specific instruments. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 23(3), 469–482.

Manning, R. L. (2010). Development of the psychological climate scale for small

business. Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 8(1), 50–65.

Martinson, B. C., Thrush, C. R., & Crain, A. L. (2013). Development and validation of

the survey of organizational research climate. Science English Ethics, 19, 813–

834.

McCarthy, A., Cleveland, J. N., Hunter, S., Darcy, C., & Grady, G. (2013). Employee

work-life balance outcomes in Ireland: a multilevel investigation of supervisory

support and perceived organizational support. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 24(6), 1257–1276.

Morrow, C. C., Jarrett, M. Q., & Rupinski, M. T. (1997). An investigation of the effect

and economic utility of corporate-wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91–

119.

Nauta, A., and Sanders, K. (2000). Interdepartmental negotiation behavior in

manufacturing organizations. The International Journal of Conflict Management,

11(2), 135–161.

Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organizational effectiveness and

efficiency. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1345–1361.

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S.,

Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2005) Validating the organization climate

68

measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408.

Pena-Suarez, E., Muniz, J., Campillo-Alvarez, A., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., & Garcia-Cueto,

E. (2013). Assessing organizational climate: Psychometric properties of the

CLIOR Scale. Psicothema, 25(1), 137–144.

Pozveh, A. Z., & Karimi, F. (2016). The relationship between organizational climate and

the organizational silence of administrative staff in education department.

International Education Studies, 9(6), 120–130.

Quinn, R. E., Hildebrandt, H. W., Rogers, P. S., & Thompson, M. P. (1991). A

competing values framework for analyzing presentational communication in

management contexts. The Journal of Business Communication, (28)3, 213–232.

Quinn, R. E., and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management

Science, 29(3), 363–377.

Robinson, S. L., and Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not

the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

Randhawa, G., & Kuldeep, K. (2015). An empirical assessment of impact of

organizational climate on organizational citizenship behavior. Paradigm, 19(1),

65–78.

Rostila, I., Suominen, T., Asikainen, P., & Green, P. (2011). Differentiation of

organizational climate and culture in public health and social services in Finland.

Journal of Public Health, 19, 39–47.

69

Russell, J. S., Terborg, J. R., & Powers, M. L. (1985). Organizational performance and

organizational level training and support. Personnel Psychology, 38, 849–863.

Schell, K. L., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Item grouping and item randomization in

personality measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 317–321.

Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation:

The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769–788.

Schnake, M. E. (1983). An empirical assessment of the effects of affective response in

the measurement of organizational climate. Personnel Psychology, 36, 791–807.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and

culture. Annual Review Psychology, 64, 361–388.

Thumin, F. J., & Thumin, L.J. (2011). The measurement and interpretation of

organization climate. The Journal of Psychology, 145(2), 93–109.

Zweber, Z. M., Henning, R. A., & Magley, V. J. (2016). A practical scale for

multifaceted organizational health climate assessment. Journal of Occupation

Health Psychology, 21(2), 250–259.

70

APPENDIX A

IRB Approval

71

APPENDIX B

ATCPHD letter of approval

72

APPENDIX C

The Figures below depict the Competing Values Framework, both as a blank figure (Figure 6) and a figure graphing the climate of the ATCPHD (Figure 5).

Figure 1. Shows the Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983).

73

Figure 6. Depicts the climate of the ATCPHD graphed onto the Competing Values Framework.

74

APPENDIX D

This is a sample of the survey measure given to the employee participants at the ATCPHD via an email link.

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

APPENDIX E

Email solicitation sent to [email protected] for permission to use the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM) for this study. Sent, Friday May 20th, 2016 at 11:54 AM.

To whom it may concern,

Hello, my name is Sarah Floyd and I am a graduate social work student at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, TX, USA. I am writing my graduate thesis over organizational climate at the local Public Health District where I am interning. I was wondering if it was permissible to use the Organizational Climate Measure cited in

Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., & Wallace, A.M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 379–408. doi: 10.1002/job.312

for my survey measure.

Thank you for your time,

Sarah Floyd

Documents

Measuring Organizational Climate at the Abilene-Taylor